SUMMARY CULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE · of the Cultural Competency Initiative. In April 2009, a...
Transcript of SUMMARY CULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE · of the Cultural Competency Initiative. In April 2009, a...
SUMMARYCULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE
in the Greater Kansas City Region 2009-2013
Michelle Alberti Gambone, Ph.D.
Adena M. Klem, Ph.D.
March 2015
REACH Healthcare Foundation
Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund
Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City
Schumaker Family Foundation
TABLE of CONTENTS
I. Background
II. Intiative Overview
III. Components of the Initiative
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
Purpose/Function
Successes and Challenges
B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Selection Process
Role of the Technical Assistance
Successes and Challenges
C. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS/ORGANIZATIONS
Selection Process
Successes and Challenges
D. CULTURAL COMPETENCY LEARNING COMMUNITY
Successes and Challenges
E. Funding Organizations
IV. Lessons Learned
1
2
6
6
7
10
12
13
14
1Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
ABOUT THIS REPORT
The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative and the
lessons learned from the launch of the initiative in 2009 through 2013. This summary is based on
three formal evaluation reports prepared by the evaluator of the initiative, review of initiative meeting
minutes and other documents, and interviews with the evaluator, the technical assistance provider, the
funders, Steering Committee members and grantees. The brief begins with an overview of the Cultural
Competency Initiative including a timeline of activities, followed by descriptions and lessons learned for
each key component of the initiative.
I. BackgroundThe Cultural Competency Initiative was designed and
launched by the REACH Healthcare Foundation to
increase the understanding and practice of cultural
competency within nonprofit health and human
service organizations in the Foundation’s six-county
service area, with the ultimate goal of reducing
disparities in health among poor and minority
populations.
Numerous determinants influence health disparities
ranging from socioeconomic status to access
to health care, social/physical environment, and
provider and institutional bias. The initiative was
designed to address the determinants of provider and
institutional bias by providing customized technical
assistance to organizations to help them implement
the Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services
(CLAS) standards developed by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Office of Minority
Health. For the purposes of this initiative, the initiative
adopted the HHS Office of Minority Health definition
of cultural competence:
Cultural and linguistic competence is a set of
congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that
come together in a system, agency, or among
professionals that enables effective work in cross-
cultural situations. ‘Culture’ refers to integrated
patterns of human behavior that include the
language, thoughts, communications, actions,
customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of racial,
ethnic, religious, or social groups. ‘Competence’
implies having the capacity to function effectively
as an individual and an organization within
the context of the cultural beliefs, behaviors,
and needs presented by consumers and their
communities.
Within the field of health, the goal of cultural
competence is to create a health care system and
workforce that are capable of delivering the highest-
quality care to every patient regardless of socio-
economic status, race, ethnicity, culture, or language
proficiency (Betancourt et al., 2008). According to
the National Center for Cultural Competence, cultural
competence requires that organizations:
● Have a defined set of values and principles, and
demonstrate behaviors, attitudes, policies, and
structures that enable them to work effectively
cross-culturally.
● Have the capacity to (1) value diversity, (2) conduct
self-assessment, (3) manage the dynamics of
difference, (4) acquire and institutionalize cultural
knowledge, and (5) adapt to diversity and the
cultural contexts of the communities they serve.
● Incorporate the above in all aspects of policy
making, administration, practice, service delivery,
and involve systematically consumers, key
stakeholders, and communities.
2Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
Understanding cultural competence is an ongoing
process that needs to be integrated at all levels of
an organization. The HHS Office of Minority Health
notes that culture and language can influence health
and healing; how illness, disease and their causes are
perceived by the patient; the behaviors and attitudes
of patients toward their health care providers; and the
delivery of services by providers who have their own
cultural perspectives and beliefs about health care.
II. Initiative OverviewTo strengthen the understanding and implementation
of cultural competence of organizations throughout
the REACH Foundation’s six-county service area, the
Foundation made an initial three-year commitment to
the Cultural Competency Initiative with the intention
that leadership development, training and technical
assistance implemented over that time period would
seed activities in the community that could sustain
these efforts. The goal was to “go beyond a superficial
diversity/cultural competence course with the
expectation of system-level change.”
As the initiative was launched in 2009, a technical
assistance (TA) firm and evaluator were selected. In
an effort to find the best possible consultant expertise,
REACH Foundation staff explored five organizations/
consultants that provide cultural competency
consulting and ultimately chose to contract with a
Denver-based firm – Cultural Competency Consulting,
LLC – created by Dr. Jose Reyes in 1984 to provide
expertise in the areas of cultural competency,
program development, training, diversity policy, grant
making and philanthropy. The REACH Foundation
also contracted with Resource Development Institute
(RDI) to conduct an evaluation of the initiative. RDI is
a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, founded in 1950, that
provides local and regional leadership in community
development, applied social and behavioral research
and program evaluation. Additional information about
the evaluation can be found in Box 1.
Throughout the remainder of the first year, Dr. Reyes
worked closely with the REACH Foundation Board
and staff to review the Foundation’s policies and
procedures for cultural competency. As a result of
this review in June 2009, a Foundation Diversity
BOX 1: EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The formative evaluation began during the
project’s initial implementation and continued
throughout the first three years of the project. Its
intent was to assess ongoing project activities
and provide information to monitor and improve
the project in a timely fashion.
Both qualitative and quantitative data collection
methods were used. Evaluation staff observed
and participated in the first-year planning
process as a member of the planning committee,
providing an evaluation perspective to
discussions and working with other planning
participants to develop evaluation plans for data
collection and analysis for initiative components.
Evaluators also observed and participated in
the development of the Steering Committee;
observed trainings conducted with REACH
Foundation Board and staff; developed and
conducted outcomes surveys for the two
trainings; conducted a staff focus group and
staff interviews. Finally, evaluators observed and
participated in additional meetings with groups
involved in related initiatives (e.g., the nursing
retention initiative) and conducted secondary
analysis of archival data (e.g., meeting minutes,
policy recommendations, foundation marketing
and promotional materials, etc.).
and Inclusion Policy was adopted by the Board of
Directors. REACH staff revised grant language,
guidelines and its website to reflect the language
3Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
in the newly adopted policy. Ultimately, a decision
was made to include domestic partner benefits and
dependent grandchildren benefits or eligibility in the
Foundation’s employee policies.
The REACH Foundation has continued to implement
changes in its operations and grant making reflecting
increased intention to integrate diversity and inclusion
into its work. For example, REACH has evolved its
cultural competency grant making into a broader
portfolio of projects and grants focused on health
equity. In addition, the Board of Directors approved
changes to the requirements for all grants. Applicants
for a REACH grant must provide a copy of their board-
approved policy demonstrating non-discrimination in
both employment and service provision. Applicants
without such a policy are ineligible for any REACH
grant. The REACH Board includes a focus on diversity
and inclusion and cultural competence in philanthropy
by exploring these topics in most of their regularly
scheduled Board meetings. Topics have included
exploring diversity in terms of disability, implicit and
explicit bias, and childhood experiences with racism
and bias.
As the Foundation focused on its internal policies, it
simultaneously began to establish key components
of the Cultural Competency Initiative. In April 2009, a
Stakeholder Committee of local cultural competency
experts – later referred to as the Steering Committee
– was established to serve as an advisory group
for the initiative. The Steering Committee helped to
develop the evaluation plan, the application process
and selection criteria for organizational technical
assistance, and the request for applications (RFA) for
the grantee organizations. The Steering Committee
also helped REACH staff select the organizations
to receive TA as part of the Cultural Competency
Initiative. The Steering Committee continued to play a
key advisory role in the initiative until it disbanded in
2013.
From 2010-2013, the primary focus of the Cultural
Competency Initiative was on providing area
health and human service organizations with
intensive, individualized technical assistance at the
organizational level. After the original cohort of eight
organizations was selected to be part of the initiative,
the RFA process was used to select three additional
cohorts of organizations in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
In total, 30 area nonprofit organizations received
cultural competence technical assistance in the areas
of assessment, coaching, policy development and
change management. The Foundation supported
development of a Cultural Competency Learning
Community. Those meetings, facilitated by Dr.
Reyes, were established in 2011 to support cross-
organizational learning across the cohorts. In 2013,
the Metropolitan Community Colleges was identified to
provide logistical and facilitation support for the Learning
Community.
Over the course of the initiative, examples of other
activities implemented include (but are not limited to):
● Convening funders meetings (either individually or
forums) which led to other foundations joining the
REACH Foundation as sponsors (see Table 1 for a
timeline of events); and
● Two conferences to present lessons learned/best
practices regarding cultural competence.
Between 2010 and 2013 three additional funders
joined the REACH Foundation in supporting the
initiative: the Health Care Foundation of Greater
Kansas City, the Jackson County Community Mental
Health Fund and the Shumaker Family Foundation.
The Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas
City (HCF) had a representative on the Steering
Committee as a community expert from its outset in
2009. In 2010, HCF became a funder of the initiative
and continued its engagement each year. REACH
and HCF have similar funding priorities and the
same service area; and program officers in both
organizations have worked together on other efforts.
This initiative was a good fit to partner on because:
HCF, from its inception has recognized that all
forms of diversity can become a barrier to quality
health for the uninsured and underserved. Two of
HCF’s guiding principles speak to the importance
of improving access, diversity, inclusion and
cultural competency.
HCF contributed $50,000 in 2010 and in 2011,
allowing the initiative to expand the number of TA
recipients. Over the next two years (2012-2013) HCF
allocated $100,000 in each year to fund TA, which
4Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
extended the timeframe of the initiative beyond
REACH’s original three-year timeline. HCF’s funding
also supported coordination and administration
activities and the evaluation through RDI.
The Jackson County Community Mental Health
Fund also had a representative on the Steering
Committee from the outset. The agency also was a TA
recipient in 2010 and then became a funder in 2013.
This progression from expert advisor to TA participant
to initiative funder occurred because:
Cultural Competency has been of interest and an
initiative of the Fund for many years. Deciding
how to formalize and evaluate providers’ level
of cultural competency to understand where
there are disparities has been a challenge. Also
evaluating our own agency’s level of cultural
competence was something we needed to do if
we were going to hold our providers to a higher
expectation.
The Jackson County Mental Health Fund contributed
$38,000 in 2012 and 2013 to support TA for additional
mental health providers.
The Shumaker Family Foundation became a
funder in 2013 as a result of outreach by the REACH
Foundation aimed at expanding the funder group. The
foundation’s executive director saw the initiative an
avenue to advance one of their strategic directions:
Under social justice, one of our strategic sub-
directions is leadership development among
people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and this
is only going to happen for “rank and file” people
if they work in organizations and conditions that
exercise cultural competency.
In 2013 the Shumaker Family Foundation contributed
$44,000 to the initiative, helping to extend the
initiative beyond the original timetable planned by the
REACH Foundation.
In addition to contributing money, staff from each
of the funding entities attended and sometimes
hosted initiative activities. The four-member funders’
collaborative assumed joint responsibility for planning
and decision-making after the first three years. Table
1 on the following page provides an overview of
initiative activities by year.
5Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF THE CULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE BY YEAR
Year 1: January – December 2009
⊲ REACH Foundation launched the Cultural Competency Initiative.
⊲ REACH Foundation undergoes organizational assessment, receives recommendations and spends first year implementing policy changes (i.e. discussion groups, individual assessments).
⊲ REACH staff convene funders forums on cultural competency including Health Care Foundation (HCF), Sunflower Foundation, Wyandotte Health Foundation, H&R Block Foundation, Francis Family Foundation, and others.
⊲ The REACH Foundation convened a 15-member stakeholder group – also referred to as the Cultural Competency Steering Committee – to serve as an advisory group.
Year 2: January – December 2010
⊲ The first round of applications for technical assistance was received and screened.
⊲ Eight organizations selected to receive TA as part of the first cohort.
⊲ TA Consultant begins monthly training program and TA for organizations.
Year 3: January – December 2011
⊲ December 2011, Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City joined initiative.
⊲ Fall 2011, the second round of applications for technical assistance was received and screened.
⊲ Eight organizations selected to receive TA as part of the second cohort.
⊲ By March 2011, the first cohort had received TA for nine months and the second cohort for five months.
⊲ Cultural Competency Learning Community established.
Year 4: January – December 2012
⊲ Fall 2012, the third round of applications for technical assistance was received and screened.
⊲ Ten organizations selected to receive TA as part of the third cohort.
⊲ Spring 2012, Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund joined initiative.
⊲ Initiative hosts workshop/conference to share lessons learned/best practices regarding cultural competence.
Year 5: January – December 2013
⊲ Four organizations selected to receive TA as part of the fourth cohort.
⊲ Shumaker Family Foundation joined initiative.
⊲ In 2013, Steering Committee discontinued meeting.
6Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
III. Components of the InitiativeA. Steering Committee
Purpose/FunctionThe Cultural Competency Steering Committee began
meeting on April 22, 2009. As described earlier, the
committee was established by REACH and approved
by the Board of Directors. The committee’s function
and organizational role was determined and directed
by the Foundation’s Board of Directors.
The original purpose of the Steering Committee was
to serve as an advisory body to the initiative to:
● Provide technical assistance, feedback and
accountability to the Cultural Competency Initiative;
● Recommend cultural competency standards for TA
recipients as directed by the Foundation staff;
● Offer technical assistance in information
dissemination and training to the initiative and TA
recipients.
From the outset, the intention was to maintain a
membership of 15 on the Steering Committee with
specific representation and to meet monthly. As
new funders joined the initiative, a board or advisory
council committee member from their organization
was added to the committee. However, HCF and
the Jackson County Community Mental Health
Fund already had representatives on the Steering
Committee serving as “community experts” prior to
becoming funding partners.
The Steering Committee meetings were facilitated by
Dr. Reyes, who also served as technical assistance
provider for the grantee organizations.
Successes and Challenges:The role of the Steering Committee was a hallmark of
the community ownership intent of the initiative and
described by one stakeholder as the “heart and soul
of the initiative.”
Steering Committee Members Chairperson
*REACH Foundation Board Representatives
Office of Minority Health - State of Kansas
DHHS Office of Minority Health Regional Consultant
Office of Minority Health - State of Missouri
Community Experts / Program Representatives
Community Leaders Representative - Kansas
Community Leaders Representative - Missouri* Member’s position/title held a permanent position on the Committee.
During the first two years of the initiative, the Steering
Committee accomplished its intended goals:
⊲ Adopted the definition for Cultural Competence;
⊲ Developed a menu of indicators of cultural competency;
⊲ Developed the criteria and application procedures for community organizations to participate in the initiative; and
⊲ Reviewed TA applications and made recommendations to the REACH Foundation regarding which agencies should be selected.
In the second year (Fall 2010) members of the
Steering Committee reflected on the goals and
accomplishments of the group. Regarding the REACH
Foundation’s creation and use of their group they felt:
● The process of selecting the Steering Committee
was transparent;
● The Steering Committee was comprised of people
with a diversity of backgrounds, professional fields,
life experiences and roles, all with a commitment to
cultural competence;
● Communication between Foundation staff, Board
and Steering Committee made the process smooth;
● Adequate time was given for the Steering
Committee process, which included important steps
such as meaningful discussion of the definition of
cultural competency and reaching a consensus on
what definition would be used by the initiative, etc.;
7Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
● REACH endorsed the recommendations and
decisions made by the Steering Committee
in multiple areas of the initiative – including
development of outcome indicators of successful
cultural competency/inclusion, the Request For
Applications design for the initiative, and the grantee
selection process – thus leading to a process/
initiative that truly was driven by the expertise of a
Steering Committee rather than by REACH.
In regards to the process of doing the work Steering
Committee members felt:
● The process was open and collaborative –
committee members were flexible, which was
reflected in their approach to the RFP selection
process;
● Members were able to share diverse perspectives
and still reach a consensus that all could support.
In the subsequent years the Steering Committee
activities centered on the RFA, grantee selection
process and staying informed on the progress of
the initiative. Once the three additional funders
began supporting the initiative, the “nuts and bolts
decision making” shifted over time from the Steering
Committee to the “Funders Group.” Eventually the
Steering Committee disbanded early in 2013 as
the initiative was moving into a new phase, which
entailed planning for sustainability in the community.
This decision to disband was initiated by the REACH
Foundation and was a source of some tension among
committee participants.
In the later years of the initiative there seemed to be
some confusion over the Steering Committee’s role
and intended longevity. As an advisory body to the
REACH Foundation Board, the members were invited
to become part of a committee that “will help guide
the development of the initiative and its outcomes,
and ultimately be involved in decisions regarding the
allocation of resources to advance the project’s goals
(invitation letter to Steering Committee members, April
22, 2009, emphasis added).”
As REACH was no longer the sole funder and
decisions began to be made jointly with other
funders, the REACH Foundation-established Steering
Committee was no longer an appropriate body for
guiding the initiative since there were other funding
partners involved. In addition, the primary work of
the committee of structuring the initiative had been
completed in the first two years.
However, according to some stakeholders, there
were committee members who had begun to view the
Steering Committee as a community leadership group
charged with sustaining long-term work on cultural
competency and diversity. Some members interpreted
the joint decision of the funders to end the meetings
of the Steering Committee as a withdrawal of support
of the effort. Members who believed the Steering
Committee was the long-term decision-making body
of the initiative also felt that the funders’ decisions
usurped its authority. This difference in perspective
was the source of significant tension among
subgroups of committee members and TA recipients,
and resulted in some politicking by a few stakeholders
to try to change the funders’ decision.
To address the need for a mechanism for sustaining
community support, Steering Committee meetings in
mid-2012 shifted to discussions on the evolution of
the Steering Committee and an appropriate vehicle for
carrying on the work.
In retrospect, REACH staff and other Steering
Committee members agree that a clear timeline for
the work of the Steering Committee would have
avoided the confusion and misinterpretation that
resulted as the cultural competency work transitioned
from the purview of REACH to the larger community.
B. Technical Assistance
Selection ProcessIn identifying consultant expertise, REACH Foundation
staff explored five organizations/consultants
that provide cultural competency consulting and
selected Jose Reyes, Ed.D., LPC, principal of
Cultural Competency Consulting, LLC. Since the
start of his consulting business, Dr. Reyes had been
developing processes to promote and ensure cultural
competence in numerous settings including federal
and state agencies, citizen groups, governing boards,
mental health programs, health care service programs,
social service agencies, foundations, and other for-
profit and nonprofit companies.
REACH Foundation staff met extensively with Dr.
8Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
Reyes and his associates and travelled to another
locale to hear Dr. Reyes present a workshop on
cultural competency to employees of public health
organizations. Staff believed Dr. Reyes’ style of
audience engagement, comprehensive scope of work,
and professional experiences and references uniquely
qualified him to carry out the bulk of the activities
proposed in this initiative.
Role of the Technical AssistanceThe core of the Cultural Competency Initiative was
to provide 12 months of intensive, tailored technical
assistance to each TA recipient organization. A menu
of appropriate services that were available from the
consultants is listed in Appendix A. In practice, the
most common areas of technical assistance were:
● An assessment of organizational policies and
procedures regarding compliance issues related
to diversity, cultural competence and inclusion
resulting in recommendations to the organization;
● Assistance forming a cultural competency/diversity
committee at the organization if one did not already
exist;
● Assisting the organization in the development of
a definition of cultural competency specific to the
organization and that fit within their overall goals
and operations; and
● Identification of cultural competence indicators for
the organization to measure progress.
The work with the TA recipient organizations
was done predominantly by Dr. Reyes. Cultural
Competency Consulting also had a specialist
in Human Resources and EEOC who reviewed
organizational policies and procedures as part
of the TA. The in-person meetings, which ranged
from meetings with staff once a month at some
organizations to three or four times a month at others,
were led by Dr. Reyes.
About half of the organizations had no existing cultural
competency committee prior to the initiative. And in
some organizations with existing committees, their
responsibilities consisted of “ordering ‘I have a Dream’
T-shirts or having international food at lunch-and-
learn staff meetings.” As a result, a great deal of early
attention was given to the formation of organizational
committees and/or defining organizational roles and
expectations.
All TA recipients developed a general definition of
cultural competence and a set of detailed activities
and goals – cultural competence indicators – to guide
their work. The definitions of cultural competence
developed by organizations stressed cultural
competence as a continuous process, and included
a generalized commitment to and goals for cultural
competence for the organization. For example, one
organizations’ definition was:
Cultural competence is being aware of and
committed to transforming our thoughts,
knowledge and understanding of others’
uniqueness through an ongoing and intentional
attainment of skills. Our organization embraces
this process in a community of care that fosters
respect for and sensitivity to the needs of children,
families, staff and community.
The cultural competency indicators, on the other
hand, provided the specific activities that were to
be undertaken to move each organization toward
cultural competence. The indicators provided detailed
goals for each organization. This is illustrated by one
organization’s work in Appendix B.
Successes and ChallengesThe final evaluation report prepared by RDI contains
an assessment of the extent to which each of the
TA recipients achieved the desired outcomes of the
initiative. To a large extent that report captures the
main lessons of the initiative and will be described in
greater detail in section C of this summary. However,
there are additional lessons learned about the TA
component.
9Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
A TALE OF TWO ORGANIZATIONS
Organization 1: A large, family services and healthcare organization
from the Year 2 cohort (2011).
The organizational leadership was meeting
resistance from some of the senior team around
implementing the core values of the organization.
Dr. Reyes began his technical assistance at this time
and as part of his work met four or five times with
the senior management team to define “what are
the behaviors that support cultural competency.”
In the course of trying to define how cultural
competence would be measured and how staff
would be assessed in this area, there was “fighting
and backbiting” among the senior staff. Over the
course of the first year of work, four senior people
left the organization. This was defined as a success
by one of the organization’s leaders.
“We were so stuck (because of the resistance
of senior managers to the core values of the
organization). The facilitation by Jose (Dr. Reyes)
was critical. Jose really brought out some
discussions. He would antagonize people to get
them to be honest. He got people to say what you
knew they were thinking but don’t say.”
According to this leader, by bringing to the surface
the core differences in values of the senior staff,
they were finally able to move forward after the
turnover in the first year. The progress in this
organization is defined as highly successful by the
evaluator, the funders and the TA provider. The
organization was going through a strategic planning
process and their participation in this initiative “took
the planning to a whole different level.”
For example, each of 12 senior managers worked
with their team to develop a mission statement,
a goal statement, and a list of behaviors needed
aligned to the core values of cultural competence.
In addition, a Performance Evaluation System was
developed based on the list of behaviors identified
across the teams.
Organization 2: A large, health care provider that was also part of the
Year 2 cohort (2011).
This organization had hired a senior person in
2010 to develop programming around equity
and diversity and they had laid out a blueprint
for moving toward cultural competence. The
organization had applied for the (Cultural
Competency Initiative) technical assistance in order
to conduct a cultural competence climate survey
with the staff and an organizational assessment of
policies and procedures. At the first TA meeting,
the staff were told the TA provider was unable to
provide assistance with either of these tasks with an
organization of their size. The second meeting “was
a disaster” according to a senior staff person. The
TA provider was trying to convince the organization
leaders that their existing plan for moving forward
with programming around equity and diversity
was “not the right path for them.” But the leaders
felt they were “already on a path and we were not
going to change direction. We needed to make our
direction better.” So the organization opted out of
using the TA provider, although they did participate
in the Learning Community (described below).
From all accounts, most of the TA recipients made
at least some progress toward cultural competence;
some made considerable progress. Much of the
success was attributed by the TA recipients to
the skills of Dr. Reyes. But the example of the two
organizations above points to an initiative lesson.
When the REACH Foundation contracted with
Cultural Competency Consulting, it was understood
that Dr. Reyes was the primary consultant. However,
Foundation staff expected that there would be other
associates of the organization available to support the
initiative. Dr. Reyes was accompanied frequently by
a second consultant, but he was essentially the sole
consultant for most of the initiative. Dr. Reyes also
was also tasked by REACH staff with facilitating the
Steering Committee and eventually (in Year 2 of TA)
also led the Learning Community.
10Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
When the style and skills of the lead consultant
matched the needs of the organization, as in the
example of Organization 1, having a single provider
presented no problem. But in a case where the skills
of the consultant did not meet the needs of the
organization, not having a team or alternative option
presented a dilemma for the initiative and its funders.
Another challenge of using a single consultant was
the ability to build relationships with different types of
people and organizations. As one TA recipient said:
“Jose (Dr. Reyes) is worth his weight in gold – but it’s a
style not everyone embraces.”
A second lesson was that the original plan to fund 12
months of TA per organization did not appear to be
enough to move beyond understanding to change. As
one funder said:
“It takes longer than a year of TA – a year
prepares them for what they have to do. Year 2 is
where it really gets done – organizational cultural
change takes this kind of time and as funders we
have to stay the course ourselves.”
While the funders did not adjust the TA opportunity to
provide additional years of direct consulting, the issue
was addressed by engaging earlier cohorts in the
Learning Community after their TA period as a way to
provide additional support and assistance.
C. Technical Assistance Recipients/Organizations
Selection ProcessAs noted above, one of the primary tasks of the
Steering Committee was to review the RFAs and make
recommendations of TA recipients. In 2010, the first
year of TA support, the initiative received applications
from eight organizations. Two organizations were
omitted because their services did not fit the
REACH Foundation’s mission and funding criteria.
The remaining six applications were assessed
according to evidence of organizational readiness,
demonstrated understanding of the barriers impeding
culturally competent delivery of service, evidence
of commitment to continue cultural competency
efforts beyond the TA period, and response to the
RFP instructions for requested materials. In that
first year, all six applicants were recommended for
acceptance. In addition, two local Schools of Nursing
that were participating in a Nursing Shortage Initiative
(supported by REACH and HCF) were invited to
participate.
This same process was used to screen applicants
for the next two years, yielding the final group of
30 recipients listed in Appendix C. TA recipients
varied greatly in a number of ways. They ranged
from organizations with only three staff members
to organizations with hundreds of staff. The
organizations provided direct services to victims of
domestic violence, children in residential care, people
with mental health concerns and people seeking
safety net medical care. They also represented
nonprofit organizations, a county government funder,
and both county and state institutions of higher
education in two states. Finally, they presented a wide
variety of cultural competency need and an equally
wide array of historical context and prior attempts to
address cultural competence, inclusion and issues
pertaining to diversity.
Successes and Challenges In 2009, the Steering Committee developed a list of
indicators of culturally competent organizations. In
the final evaluation report prepared in 2013, a rubric
was presented that categorized the progress of the
TA recipients across the five areas of the initiative
framework into one of three levels:
Testing: An organization is in the early stages of
implementation; treating cultural competency as
another “program;” has not begun integrating
changes across the organizational framework; or
never engaged fully in the TA process.
Implementation: An organization is making
infrastructural changes, but not yet at a level that
can sustain their cultural competency efforts; or not
yet integrated across all areas of the organization.
Integration: An organization has developed a
sustainable infrastructural capacity to function
effectively within the context of the changing
cultural beliefs, behaviors and needs presented
by agency personnel, consumers and their
communities.
Qualitative ratings were made by the evaluator based
on self-reports by organization staff on surveys,
11Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
information from the TA consultants and interviews. The
organizations were rated in five areas of the initiative:
1. People/Personnel
2. Organizational Structures
3. Interaction Among and Between Staff and
Between Staff and Clients
4. Direct Service Provision
5. Feedback/Ongoing Assessment
These ratings were then combined into one overall
implementation progress score.
Twenty-five1 organizations were rated across three
cohorts (2010, 2011 and 2012) and one-third of the
organizations (N=9) were rated at the highest level, or
“integration” level of cultural competence. One-quarter
(N=6) were rated at the lowest level of “testing” cultural
competence; of these half were from the 2012 cohort.
The remaining 40% (N=10) were at the middle, or
“implementation” level of cultural competence.
Over the course of the initiative participants were
asked by the evaluators on multiple occasions how
client services have changed since participating
in the Cultural Competency Initiative and asked to
give examples of how participating in the Cultural
Competency Learning Community has impacted
them and/or their organization. Through content
analysis the evaluators identified common themes
and insights.
When asked how client services have
changed through participation in the
initiative, the most common response
was around increased awareness
or insight in terms of individual and
organizational bias, privilege, individual
actions and behaviors, and client needs.”
1 The 2012-2013 evaluation report includes ratings for 25 of the 28 grantees. There is no explanation for the discrepancy.
The most common theme that emerged across both
questions involved increased awareness or insight.
Several subthemes involving awareness and insight
emerged, including:
● Increased awareness of own and organizational biases
○ “My own understanding of personal biases and self-awareness has increased.”
○ “Has allowed me to become more aware of my prejudices and bias as a service provider.”
○ “It is making me aware of how cultural competency can sometimes fly in the face of my organization’s root beliefs and values.”
○ “Staff has become more aware of their own biases which assists them with their interactions with clients.”
● Increased awareness or understanding of topic
areas such as privilege, bias, etc.
○ “I think AWARENESS is the major impact: awareness of privilege; the breadth diversity that ‘culture’ encompasses; awareness of our environment.”
○ “A better understanding of white privilege.”
○ Increased awareness of own actions
○ “Has made me be more aware of my own behavior.”
○ “I can be better aware of my actions and really stop to think how is this going to affect my clients and even coworkers.”
● Increased insight into others’ different views
○ “I have better insight that everyone is going to come from different backgrounds.”
○ “I have learned that everyone person I work with is completely different.”
○ “Everyone is open-minded and always tries to understand the client fully to better help them without passing judgment.”
○ “We just better understand the importance of views and values when working with a diverse population.”
● Increased awareness of client needs
○ “More aware of needs and available resources in the community as a whole.”
○ “More understanding of the different cultures.”
○ “Staff is more aware of client’s needs and able to provide those more quickly.”
12Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
A third theme that emerged across both questions
was that it was too early in the process to know.
● “Our committee is made up of some very
enthusiastic and dedicated staff. Though we are still
in the early phase, we have each expressed ways
in which we have already grown individually. We’ve
not yet “taken” it to the agency as a whole as we
are still in the planning stages.”
● “We are still in the beginning phase of developing
our culture competency.”
A final theme that emerged across both questions
identified unresolved internal barriers.
● “The technical assistance was great. Our
organization had many stumbling blocks and much
of it came to fruition during our technical assistance
time. Now that there is new leadership, I am hoping
we can revive the cultural competence committee
and create an environment where staff and clients
thrive.”
● “I participated in the first Cultural Competency
Committee, enjoyed our meetings and discussions,
and was hopeful about broadening the conversation
among staff. Even though new committee members
were to continue the conversation, I have never
heard the topic of cultural competency ever
mentioned again.”
● “I believe that a lot of my fellow employees were
already culturally competent due to our educational
background and life experiences. However, I think
that many other employees, and especially our
volunteers, need some serious training. We have
volunteers who are the first contact with the public,
and they are often very judgmental.”
● “I am disappointed that cultural competency did
not seem to take hold here. I am still impressed
by the care and sensitivity that service providers
extend to our clients, but still think the organization
lags behind in terms of staff, board diversity,
organizational policies, and willingness to talk about
difficult issues.”
One of the ongoing challenges for the recipient
organizations identified by stakeholders is
developing the capacity to collect ongoing data
about the success of their cultural competence
activities (e.g., feedback from clients and staff,
statistical data on unmet needs, etc.).
D. Cultural Competency Learning Community
One of the desired outcomes of the initiative was
to establish a cadre of nonprofit leaders who will
advance cultural competency beyond the life of
this initiative. To this end the Cultural Competency
Learning Community was established in early
2011. The purpose of the formation of this Learning
Community was to provide participants with
education, give opportunities to share experiences,
foster networking between the organizations and
deepen knowledge of cultural competency. The
monthly meeting topics focused on best practices in
cultural competency education. Participants learned
from each other and shared strategies for advancing
their own efforts.
By March 2011 a Learning Community Education
Calendar was presented to the Steering Committee
for feedback and approval. Committee members
had the opportunity to present on particular topics.
Dr. Reyes developed the calendar and resources
and facilitated the meetings. In the beginning, the
Learning Community met monthly at the REACH
Foundation.
Over the intervening years, the Learning Community
evolved and grew with the initiative. In its first years,
the Learning Community functioned as a source
of additional education in specific topics related to
cultural competency and inclusion (See Appendix
B for a list of educational topics). As more cohorts
were added, it evolved into a professional learning
community model where cross-learning occurs
through inter-organizational sharing, brain-storming
and discussion. In developing this report, the funders
expressed a desire that the Learning Community lead
and grow cultural competency efforts in the Kansas
City region after the initiative has formally ended.
Successes and ChallengesThe evaluators asked the TA recipients to reflect on
how participation in the Learning Community affected
their work. One major theme that emerged involved
providing participants with increased and renewed
motivation to continue the work at the agency level.
● “Participating in the (Cultural Competency) learning
13Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
community has enhanced and developed an
appetite to systematically bring permanent change.”
● “The learning community has helped us to
normalize many of our struggles and also helped
us to envision new pathways to meeting those
struggles.”
● “The learning community consistently reminds me to
keep cultural competence in my consciousness and
not let it become a ‘back-burner issue.’”
● “The learning community helps me to continue
to address the issue and helps me feel OK about
the fact that changes happen incrementally, and
organizational change takes a long time.”
● “I was never very hopeful about true and sustained
change happening. But I am now very hopeful, even
confident.”
Another major theme that emerged involved
increased opportunity for dialogue or to discuss
difficult issues. Two subthemes involving dialogue and
discussion of difficult issues emerged, including:
● Providing a safe place for dialogue
○ “The learning community is the safest place I have to discuss difficult issues.”
○ “It gave us a safe place to discuss rifts occurring in the organization as well as in the community that marginalize and minimize people.”
○ “The safety and trust has developed enough to allow myself to be vulnerable with team members and openly share struggles.”
○ “Created safe place to talk about differences among staff, clients, community, etc.”
● Opportunity to have open and tough discussions
○ “The learning community has helped us launch tough discussions in our committee and begin to discuss strategies to go agency wide.”
○ “Allowed for a consistent and transparent dialogue with my colleagues.”
○ “It offered an arena to address some diversity issues and offered training to help people become more aware of individual biases and prejudices.”
○ “It has provided a dialog that will continue beyond the technical assistance.”
A third theme that emerged involved learning from others. ○ “The impact came from the interactions and
feedback of other members issues at their workplaces, mistakes and achievements examples are golden for our initiative and own growth.”
○ “Several of the topics discussed and resources shared at the Learning Community Meetings have been incorporated into agency personnel trainings.”
○ “Loved the opportunity to participate through the TA grant, and our ongoing opportunities even this year to network and continue our learning in the larger group.”
A final theme that emerged from TA recipients
involved increased resources.
○ “The learning community provides resourceful tools to take back to my organization.
○ “I am able to influence change based on educational opportunities provided.”
○ “Integrated cultural competency into trauma informed care plan and trainings.”
E. Funding Organizations
As described, the REACH Foundation originally
undertook the Cultural Competency Initiative as a
three-year project, with one year for planning and two
successive cohorts of TA recipients to receive tailored
technical assistance. Another goal of the initiative was
to “engage other foundations in the Greater Kansas
City area that share an understanding of cultural
competency and seek their commitment to explore
collaborative efforts in this area.” To accomplish this,
Foundation staff and the TA consultant convened
funders and offered presentations to foundation
boards of directors2 around cultural competency and
the initiative.
In fall 2010, the Health Care Foundation of Greater
Kansas City (HCF) joined as a partner, which allowed
an expansion of the number of TA grants in 2011.
The Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund
joined in spring 2012, further expanding the TA grants
for 2012. The Shumaker Family Foundation joined
the funding group in 2013 with an expressed interest
in leadership development, capacity building and
developing a mentoring program. As the initiative
partners and resources expanded, the funders placed
more emphasis on its sustainability.
2 These included Health Care Foundation (HCF), Sunflower Foundation, Wyandotte Health Foundation, H&R Block Foundation, Francis Family Foundation, The Shumaker Foundation, and others.
14Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
Program staff at the Health Care Foundation of
Greater Kansas City wanted to see greater focus
on development of internal champions for the work
of the initiative in the participating organizations.
Staff expressed dissatisfaction with the way cultural
competence was addressed in the RFA narrative.
They were receiving “… by-laws, EEO statements, etc.,
not anything showing commitment.”
The Jackson County Mental Health Fund initially
became involved in the initiative as a TA recipient
organization. The Mental Health Fund staff felt that
the cultural competency plans of mental health
service providers were inadequate, but believed
their organization should first assess its own cultural
competence by engaging in the process. The Mental
Health Fund participated in the TA process in 2011 –
marking the first time the organization’s Board had
received outside technical assistance in this area.
One of their outcomes was the formation of a Cultural
Competence Consulting Committee to the Board
tasked with laying out cultural competence/diversity
requirements, and rewards and consequences for
the recipients of its mental health grants. Another
outcome was the Board’s commitment to investing
in cultural competency and the decision to join the
initiative as a funding partner.
The staff at the Shumaker Family Foundation saw
the initiative as an avenue to advance one of their
strategic priorities – leadership development of
people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The
foundation’s staff representative believed that
this leadership development could better occur if
people worked in environments that were culturally
competent.
Overall the REACH Foundation invested $643,000 as
part of its efforts to improve cultural competency in
the health and human services sector. HCF invested
$300,000 between 2010 and 2013, the Jackson
County Community Mental Health Fund invested
$76,000, and the Shumaker Family Foundation
invested $44,000, yielding a collective investment of
just over $1,000,000 during the years 2008-2013.
Regarding the TA recipient organizations, the funders
communicated their belief that the initiative improved
organizations’ approach and language around cultural
competence. “All are at different levels, but the
commitment to inclusion and diversity (is there). We
have seen it in Board policies, make-up of the Board,
procedures and policies. The applications (we receive)
show who has been part of the initiative and who has
not.”
IV. Lessons LearnedThe Cultural Competency Initiative accomplished
the goal of creating a broad community belief in,
and commitment to, cultural competency among
many Greater Kansas City health care providers
and funders. The inclusion of a Steering Committee
comprised of local experts and leaders in the area
of diversity and inclusion also produced strong
community involvement and reach. The initiative
also has sown seeds of community ownership of
cultural competency through creating the Learning
Community. This forum has built relationships across
the community that are being mined for leadership to
guide ongoing efforts.
The initiative also made progress toward improving
the quality of direct health services to minority
populations. Not all recipient organizations
progressed in this area or to the same level, but a
number of them have addressed their direct service
provision. As examples:
⊲ A residential treatment center for children revised their clinical assessment process to be more culturally appropriate.
⊲ A medical training facility created eight scholarships for minority students for the first time; established a partnership with a high school serving primarily minority students to provide free medical services and recruit new students; and are changing their cultural competency committee to an Office of Diversity.
⊲ A funding entity created their first community advisory committee for cultural competency and changed the way they structure site visits to TA recipients in order to be less proprietary based on a new understanding of privilege.
⊲ A homeless services organization adjusted shelter procedures for working with transgendered individuals; implemented a new procedure to reserve a certain number of lower bunk beds for senior clients; and are being more inclusive in terms of religious accommodations.
15Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
Key Lessons
The initiative met all of its early goals and is firmly on
the path to creating the mechanisms to sustain the
progress made. As is the case with most community
collaborations, there were implementation “bumps”
along the way. The challenges the stakeholders
encountered offer insights for future work in the
community. These are described below.
Diversity in Technical Assistance Provider(s)
For an initiative in which the core intervention is
technical assistance, there needs to be more than
one option for that assistance. With the diversity
of types of organizations and the growth in the
number of organizations, there was a need for a
range of styles and skill sets in the TA provider.
The central philosophy about the TA was that it
should be “personalized” for each organization.
Offering only one resource option resource
limits the ability to meet the diverse needs and
requirements. In hindsight, the funders reported
they would have placed greater emphasis on
developing local TA resources in order to build
sustainability from the outset.
Role clarity
There was a need for greater role clarity for
the TA provider, the evaluator and the Steering
Committee. Dr. Reyes’ formal roles included
providing TA to all of the grantee organizations,
facilitating Steering Committee meetings,
running the Learning Community, presenting to
potential funders and advising the foundations.
These multiple assignments created a situation
where “one person became the face of cultural
competence in the community.” Over time,
recognition of this difficulty contributed to the
funders deciding to contract with an organization to
serve as an administrative entity for the initiative.
The evaluator also played multiple roles within
the initiative. In addition to collecting data for the
evaluation, the evaluator attended all Steering
Committee meetings and facilitated some of
those convenings (e.g., identifying outcomes
and indicators). The evaluator also attended all
Learning Community meetings and presented at
some, and worked closely with the TA provider.
When the evaluator is also supporting project
implementation, it may confuse understanding of
the evaluation role and responsibilities.
As described previously, there were some
differences in understanding among Steering
Committee members as to their roles, which
extended to other stakeholders in the initiative.
The addition of other funders to the initiative
also necessitated a change in the governance
structure to recognize that broader partnership.
As originally formed, the Steering Committee
was intended to serve as an advisory body to the
REACH Foundation and not intended to function
as a permanent body. In retrospect, the purpose
and role of that group needed to be more clearly
addressed with stakeholders early and often.
Alignment of Expectations
The intensity and frequency of TA varied from
organization to organization, as did the starting
point for each organization. These variations
affected the pace of progress. So while the intent
was for TA to occur over a calendar year, timelines
needed to be stretched for some organizations,
leading to TA extensions and follow-up support
after the initial participation year. Ultimately, the
Learning Community offered a vehicle to continue
technical support after the TA year.
Need for a Managing Entity
When the initiative was designed, the REACH
Foundation was to serve as the managing
entity. As the initiative evolved and the Learning
Community was added, the TA provider
assumed additional responsibilities, increasing
the consultant’s influence on the work. Having
a locally based managing entity might have
lessened the emphasis on the TA consultant.
There also was a need for a facilitator external
to the foundations and TA consultant to guide
discussions and decisions regarding the evolving
role of the Steering Committee.
Additionally, as the initiative grew in terms of
funders and TA recipients, there was a need
to centralize management. The foundations
contracted separately with Dr. Reyes for various
work, leading to confusion about expectations,
work products and accountability.
16Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
In 2013, the Steering Committee selected an
organization to perform this administrative
function, but it was not a successful partnership.
As of this report, the foundations have contracted
with a well-established nonprofit capacity building
organization to manage the work and facilitate
strategic planning regarding community-based
cultural competency endeavors for the future.
According to one funder “(my) main do-over is to
push for an outside leadership organization much,
much sooner.”
Sustainability
While sustainability plans are expected of
most initiatives, these are often challenging
to design and implement. The long-term goal
of transitioning efforts from the foundations’
oversight to the community was a stated priority
from the outset. The expansion of the initiative in
its first three years may have delayed the timeline,
but the stakeholders seem to be well-positioned
for strategic planning for the future with a diverse,
committed group of nonprofit leaders. The funders
also appear to be committed to supporting the
resulting plan and future work around diversity.
Funder Coordination
Representatives of the funders have
acknowledged that coordination of the initiative
became more challenging as their partnership
grew. Each funder reported that their individually
executed contracts with the TA provider
contributed to a “silo” effect. The result of multiple
contracts fostered independent projects that
may not have been fully aligned with the purpose
and goals of the overall initiative. For example,
a mentoring program funded by the Shumaker
Family Foundation was not vetted with the other
funders and consequently did not align with other
planned efforts around sustainability that had been
incorporated into the initiative design. In the end,
the mentoring program failed to take root and
withered. The funders recognize this as a misstep
in their efforts to establish a consistent framework,
coordinated messaging and activity, and a fully
aligned initiative.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about the Cultural Competency
Initiative, contact:
Carla Gibson, Senior Program Officer, REACH Healthcare FoundationPH 913-432-4196 / [email protected]
www.reachhealth.org
Adriana Pecina, Program Officer, Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas CityPH 816-271-7006 / [email protected]
www.hcfgkc.org
Theresa Reyes-Cummings, Director of Program Development, Jackson County Community Mental Health FundPH 816-842-7055 / [email protected]
www.jacksoncountycares.org
Laura Curry Sloan, Executive Director, Shumaker Family FoundationPH 913-764-1772 / [email protected]
www.shumakerfamilyfoundation.org
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Michelle Alberti Gambone, Ph.D., is president of Youth Development
Strategies, Inc. (YDSI), a nonprofit policy research and technical
assistance organization. Gambone’s work focuses on youth
development, community mobilization and youth policy and
program effectiveness. YDSI was formed in 2002 to assist
community organizations and public, government, nonprofit and
other institutions that serve youth. Gambone also leads Gambone
& Associates, a policy and research consulting firm that provides
guidance on planning, management and evaluation strategies and
tools. Gambone earned a doctorate in sociology from Princeton
University.
Adena M. Klem, Ph.D., is an independent consultant specializing
in using theory of change approach to evaluation and strategic
planning. Klem has conducted research in a range of rural and
urban communities including evaluations of comprehensive
education, health, community and youth development initiatives,
working on multi-site evaluations and data collection efforts. Dr.
Klem is currently conducting a multi-year evaluation of the REACH
Foundation’s Rural Health Initiative that is working in three counties
in Kansas and Missouri. Klem received her doctorate from Columbia
University.
P U B L I S H E D B Y
17Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
APPENDIX A: SERVICES OFFERED TO GRANTEE ORGANIZATIONS
⊲ Consultations on program development
⊲ Provision of resources such as access point information to facilitate service for diverse clients (issues of LEP clients, dictionaries, language identification card training, interpreter training information and resources)
⊲ Board training
⊲ Staff training
⊲ Lunch and learn resources/participation
⊲ Ongoing journal article dissemination on cultural competency best practices
⊲ Case discussions and consultation
⊲ Cultural Competency Committee Development and attendance at all committee meetings
⊲ Cultural Competency Organizational Climate survey, construction, development and reporting
⊲ Development of cultural competence indicators
⊲ Diversity, inclusion and HR policy review and recommendations
⊲ Meetings with evaluation team
⊲ Phone consultations
⊲ Participation/planning and facilitation of the Learning Community meetings
⊲ Consultation on EEOC issues
⊲ Risk management consultation
⊲ Consultation on integration of cultural competence in current treatment modalities
⊲ Conflict resolution
18Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE ORGANIZATION CULTURAL COMPETENCY INDICATORS
Staff/Board of Directors Diversity/Recruitment of Interns
⊲ We recruit staff, board and interns that reflect the diversity of the community we serve.
⊲ We hire or contract bilingual staff to provide services for LEP clients.
⊲ We include cultural competency as part of the criteria for hiring new staff.
⊲ The board nominating committee has specific criteria for recruiting diverse members.
Training
⊲ We provide ongoing trainings on the topics of cultural competence, diversity and inclusion.
⊲ We measure the knowledge staff gains from trainings and their impact.
⊲ Cultural competency training is included in staff orientations and board orientations.
Services
⊲ We offer bilingual services to LEP clients.
⊲ Assessments and service will be conducted in ways that provide the opportunity for clients to share and educate providers on their life experiences.
⊲ We accommodate client needs and are flexible to reduce barriers to service.
⊲ Our organizational policies integrate the client’s trauma history as an aspect of diversity.
Infrastructure
⊲ Cultural competence is integrated into the staff yearly performance reviews.
⊲ We have an organizational cultural competency committee that meets and oversees the facilitation and ongoing development of the organization’s CC Plan.
Data
⊲ We collect diversity data to help inform us about the potential cultural factors that impact how service is offered.
⊲ We ask specific questions related to culture and language to help us serve the needs of clients.
⊲ We gather cultural information about the clients who receive services.
⊲ We collect client satisfaction data regarding the client’s perception of agency’s sensitivity to their cultural needs.
Marketing
⊲ We create messages and campaigns that celebrate uniqueness and a diverse community.
⊲ We create messages that are respectful of the experiences of trauma survivors, in an effort to reduce stereotypes.
⊲ We market to reach individuals from a variety of lifestyles and cultural backgrounds.
19Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
2010 Technical Assistance Recipients Service Area
Cabot Westside Health Center Medical and Dental Services
Hope House Domestic Violence Services
Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund Funder (Mental Health)
Pathways Community Behavioral Healthcare Community Mental Health Services
Spofford Residential Treatment for Children
UMKC School of Dentistry Dental Education
KCK School of Nursing Nursing Education
MCC-Penn Valley School of Nursing Nursing Education
2011 Technical Assistance Recipients Service Area
Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas Family Services and Healthcare
Children’s Mercy Hospital and Clinics Medical Services for Children
The Children’s Place Treatment of Abused Children
El Centro, Inc. Social Services for Hispanic Families
Harvesters Food Bank
MCC-Penn Valley Health Science Institute Medical Education
Operation Breakthrough, Inc. Early Education, Child Care & Social Services
ReStart, Inc. Housing and Homeless Services
2012 Technical Assistance Recipients Service Area
Child Abuse Prevention Association Child Abuse Treatment and Prevention
Cornerstones of Care Prevention and Treatment Services for Children and Families
Children’s Therapeutic Learning Center Therapeutic and Educational Services for
Children With Disabilities
Johnson County Mental Health Center Community Mental Health Services
KidsTLC, Inc. Children’s Mental Health and Wellness
Mattie Rhodes Social and Mental Health Services
Niles Home for Children Residential and Day Treatment for Children
ReDiscover Community Mental Health Center
Rose Brooks Center, Inc. Domestic Violence Services
University of Kansas School of Medicine Medical Education
2012 Technical Assistance Recipients Service Area
Benilde Hall Housing and Substance Abuse Services
Child Protection Center Forensic Interviewing and Family Support Services
Comprehensive Mental Health Services Community Mental Health Services
Kansas City, Missouri Health Department Medical Prevention and Treatment
APPENDIX C: CULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE GRANTEES
20Summary of the Cultural Competency Initiative 2009-2013
APPENDIX D: LEARNING COMMUNITY EDUCATION TOPICS
2011 Topics
Regional Health Assessment Report – Live Presentation
System Factors, Discrimination and Health Disparities: The Role of Law, Policies and Institutional Practices – Webcast
Inclusion, Diversity and a Respectful Work Environment: Practical Applications for TA Recipients – Live Presentation
Health Disparities and Social Determinants of Health – Live Presentation
Developing Linguistically Appropriate Services – Compliance and National Trends – Live Presentation
Targeted Cultural Competency Curriculum for Your Organization – Live Presentation
Developing Indicators for Cultural Competence – Live Presentation
Implicit vs. Explicit Attitudes, Biases and Stereotypes: Implications for Service Providers – Webcast
2012 Topics
Cultural Competency Initiative Third Year Outcomes Report
The Bro-Code – How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexism in Men
Lessons Learned Focus Group – Welcome 2012 TA Recipients
Micro-Aggressions – How to Communicate Inclusion in the Workplace
Oppression, Classism and Racism – Impact on Self -Worth and Mental Health
Understanding Outcomes in Cultural Competence
Diversity and Inclusion in Your Program Policies – A Foundation for Cultural Competence
A Candid Conversation About Success and Challenges in Infusing Cultural Competence in your Board of Directors
Community Engagement and Reducing Health Disparities – What is our role?
Inclusion and Differing Abilities
Why Study Discrimination? – Webcast Presentation